He doesn't qualify for financial hardship, if that's where your concern is. He's not getting free healthcare.
Living the dream! Don't be jealous of him Hightop. It's not his fault that you hate your life, and it's not his fault that you want everyone else to suffer like you do.
Yeah, that's the part I don't get. How does PPACA change anything? He's been getting "free" health care since 1986 when EMTALA forced hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay.
That's purely semantics. You pay less taxes if you buy health insurance from a private company. You also pay less taxes if you buy a Prius from Toyota. You also pay less taxes if you buy a house from KB Homes. You also pay less taxes if you go to University of Phoenix. All are private entities. In each case, you pay more tax if you don't do the above.
Not true. You do not pay MORE tax if you don't do the above (as you listed) you may normal tax. You pay your income tax. You pay less if you do certain things the government considers deductible from your income. This is more like if after calculating your tax bill the IRS said to you "Well Major since you didn't contribute to a political campaign this year we are going to tack on $500 to your tax bill. And since you didn't buy groceries from Whole Foods we'll tack on another $500. And lastly, since you didn't contribute anything financially into the airline industry we are adding an additional $10000 to pay for anti-terrorism programs."
People who work are now forced to purchase products. People who choose not to work are forced to do so. They also don't have to pay the tax/fine.
Yes, but if he doesn't get insurance, he will have to pay a tax due to his actions. I'm not alone in wondering how you take that and then manage to get to "I have to pay for him now" when he will be chipping in, one way or another.
From a semantics standpoint, that's true - but something isn't going to be made Constitutional or Unconstitutional based on semantics. In reality, it works the same way. Whether you pay more for not doing something or less for doing something is the same end result in actual practice. If one is legal, the other should be as well. The way you calculate it may vary, but that's just how the words are written. What you're suggesting is that if they just reworded the semantics of the law to have the exact same impact buy start with a tax and then take it away for people who buy health care, it would be Constitutional.
You can assume 32% irony, and 14% condensation, as well as 10% sarcasm in everything I say. Glad you liked it.
Mind you, a mere summer analyst at JP Morgan (assuming I had such a friend, which you really shouldn't. THE INTERNET), outearns most people in this world---even perhaps in just the summer. Their salaries are still like madhouse crazy (McKinsey is pro-rated 80k a year about, Wall Street is even better.)
Yes, because most unemployed people choose not to work and just sit on the street and stair at the ground.
Haven't you heard, the free market shifts to employ everyone (especially with a running double-dip recession in half the world).
Under Obamacare he can continue to receive free health care care while not buying health insurance, not signing up for Medicaid, and not paying the tax/fine. But that's not "most" people so we shouldn't care.
